I’ve recently realized that in two years of writing this blog, I’ve covered very few ghost stories. I don’t know why, but I just don’t find myself watching a lot of haunted house flicks. I mean, there are some classics that I love, and haunted houses do spooky so well, and yet, I relatively rarely check out a new one on release. So I thought that as it is a busy month for me and it will be difficult to write a lot of posts, maybe I could just set the rule that in the limited time I have, I will mostly watch ghost movies that I haven’t seen before (haunted houses if possible, but not exclusively), and try to write about all that I see.
You may or may not have noticed, but as a rule, I only write positive reviews here. I figure if a movie doesn’t do it for me, it’s no skin off my back, and I have better things to do with my time than write about it, so I try to only discuss work that I actually find interesting, about which I have something to say. I figure it’s not my job to say if something is good or bad, but to give some consideration to whatever in it piques my interest. That said, this may be a bit of a challenge since I don’t know what my response will be to each of these. I hope that even in cases where I don’t love a given movie, there will be something worthwhile to discuss. Let’s see…
Haunted Mansion (2023)
This has got to be the first Disney movie I’m reviewing on this blog, but it showed up on Disney+ recently, and a kid’s haunted house movie just felt like a perfect way to get into the Halloween mood. Will it be the scariest movie you’ve ever seen? Certainly not (I’m assuming none of my readers are five – prove me wrong)! But is it a solid horror movie for a young crowd? I really think so.
Now, I don’t have kids and it’s been a while since I was one, but I felt this was a really fun haunted house ride for young viewers. I’ve also never been to Disney Land and ridden the ride, so I can’t speak to comparison, but I rather got a kick out of this. It’s big and funny and quite silly, with some over the top performances here and there, loads of comedy – both slapstick and sardonic, and a main villain who’s quite cartoony, but it’s also surprisingly well grounded in a palpable sense of grief, it’s got some fun spooky atmosphere and play with scary-not scary ghost moments, and one jump scare that I think would be pretty startling for the target audience, as well as a very likeable cast (I was very impressed with 14 year old Chase Dillon – that kid’s got timing and a great dry delivery). Plus, it takes some rather dark turns, such as a third act plot point centered around suicidal ideation, both from the main protagonist and from a young child.
I have no idea how this was received upon release this summer (I didn’t follow its reviews), but I could imagine some finding fault in its blend of disparate tones – from zany to serious, from cartoony, playfully executed ghost gags to real threat involving a young kid. However, I really like how it blended these elements. Looking back, I feel one of the things that’s so much fun about Halloween when you’re little is that it features the kinds of things that entertainment marketed towards you usually avoids – death, weight, sadness – and it makes it fun (though, to be fair, all the old Disney movies, Halloweenish or otherwise, feature dead mothers, so plenty of stuff for kids has dark elements – but those other kids movies don’t play with death in the same way – allowing sadness, but also showing that spooky, sad, scary things can be a blast). I think that’s the case with this film. It made me laugh, it got one jump out of me, and I was connected to its emotional center (I assume I cried – but I’m an easy mark – I cry at coffee commercials). Plus, it’s set exactly at Halloween, has some cool New Orleans vibes and is a visual treat. I hope some kids liked it – I did.
The Amityville Horror (1979)
My first time watching this, though it is a big movie of its era (and I love me some 70s horror). Honestly, I found this one a mixed bag, but its strengths more than justified the watch. It’s the not unfamiliar story of a family moving into a ‘bad place’ where odd and threatening things start happening and the father starts cracking under the pressure, poisoned by the house until it seems he might take an axe to his wife and three kids, at one point, chopping down the bathroom door behind which they’re hiding (ring any bells?). Along the way, flies fill empty rooms, a friendly neighborhood priest suffers cardiovascular distress and goes blind, a pit of blood opens up in the basement, and quite iconically, the walls bleed and a raspy voice shouts to “get out!”
I’ve never read the book, but as I understand, certain key elements are, in fact, based on a true story. In 1974, a man did murder his family in a house on the south shore of Long Island, and one year later, the Lutz family did move in, only to leave a few weeks later, claiming to have experienced paranormal horrors during their short tenure. I assume that everything else is an invention of Jay Anson, the author of the novel, or Sandor Stern, the screenwriter. And from the paragraph above, one other influence seems evident. I can’t help but note that that Stephen King published “The Shining” in ’76, Anson published his novel in ’77, the film of The Amityville Horror was released in ’79, and The Shining was released in ’80. There is surely a bundle of similarity to be found amidst the works. That said, the points at which the stories overlap were the strongest of the film for me. I can’t help but feel that, given King’s objections to Kubrick’s film, he probably would have liked to steal away James Brolin and Margot Kidder from Amityville. They are great, really carrying the film, and maybe would have given him versions of the Torrences closer to what he’d imagined (I personally do love Kubrick’s film and think Shelly Duvall knocks it out of the park, though her performance was unfairly derided at the time).
But though many things land, I’m not sure I understand everything in this movie – is this house a gate to hell? Is it haunted? Are there problems because it was built on Indian burial ground or because it was built by a Satanist, expelled from Salem? What’s up with the flies? The menacing presence sure seems to hate priests and there’s a strong current of religious horror in the foregrounding of Catholic faith (perhaps still riding the coattails of The Exorcist as so many other books and films did in this period), but that faith never seems particularly efficacious – no demons are cast out; the priest never actually does anything. Does the father really bear an uncanny resemblance to the killer from one year earlier or is this just a dark vision hoisted on his wife to freak her out (but the police sergeant sees it too)? What was that blue, pig headed monster that we see for a flash in the upper window? Are all of these questions supposed to remain unanswered and we should only understand that this is a terrible place and that they should hurry up and leave? Are we just throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the screen and hoping for the best?
At the end of the day, the one thing I really connect to, that feels genuinely solid, is the central relationship. I buy the love between the Lutzes. I believe that James Brolin’s George really cares about his wife and her kids, enough to take a big financial risk in buying this money pit that he can’t afford, enough also to have apparently ‘changed his religion’ as is mentioned by a friend of his – making the scene where he tries to cleanse the house with Catholic prayer kind of moving even if I’m otherwise turned off by such things – he is doing the thing that is important to the woman he loves, he is acting on her belief to try to respond to the very real terrors they’ve experienced at this point. I also absolutely believe the threat he represents. The way he gets closer and closer to the edge is scary. Is an evil force acting on him or is he just under so much stress that he is becoming dangerous, even to those he loves? Or, perhaps most frighteningly, did Margot Kidder’s Kathy just marry a dangerous, angry man, and the house just reveals his true character? The film, and Brolin’s performance, walk a line where all of these could be true. Either way, he gets pretty terrifying (but he goes back for the dog at the end, so I’m gonna say he’s still a good guy). And who couldn’t love Margot Kidder? Seeing how strong and tough and full of life her character begins, but having the sense that she’s been through it (we never learn about what happened with her first husband – did he die? Was he abusive and she had to get away with the kids? What does that mean for her as she watches her new husband fraying around the edges and snapping at them?), when she crumbles under the weight of the house, it’s awful.
So, I can’t say that this is my favorite haunted house film (if it’s even haunted – maybe it’s possessed), but I am glad to have finally seen it. It looks great, the acting is top shelf, there is solid unsettling atmosphere, some very effective filming (the close ups on the flies stand out), and it’s got a memorable, lilting, creepy theme. Plus, I grew up in Massapequa Park, only one stop over on the Babylon line of the Long Island Rail Road from Amityville, so there’s even a small, personal connection.
Brooklyn 45 (2023)
This one is interesting. I appreciate its willingness to be its own thing – less a modern horror movie than a chamber drama revolving around a séance, literal ghosts demanding that characters carry out actions which perpetuate roles they’ve played in the past, roles from which some strive to be free. It is a unique piece, even if I can’t say that I totally fell for it.
Set in December 1945, a few months after the end of the war, a group of old friends meet to comfort one whose wife has recently committed suicide. Though he’d never been religious or spiritual, he has become obsessed with reaching out to her and making contact. Reluctantly, they all agree to try the ceremony. Without going into detail, as there are emotional outbursts, and character revelations aplenty, the night takes a dark turn and everyone in the group is forced to confront the metaphorical ghosts of their pasts – actions they took during the war, identities they’ve forged for themselves, pain and rage and recrimination that they all have trouble letting go of.
The story feels very much like a theatrical play – like “12 Angry Men” with ghosts and war themes – this small group essentially locked in a room in real time, confronting each other and themselves. This is both the strength of the piece and an element that could turn off certain viewers. There is something a bit stagey about it all. They are all very much “characters” – while they are all played very well, and fully inhabited, each is so clearly drawn that it actually feels a bit artificial (at least it did for me), as if each character must hold certain views and perform certain actions so the themes and issues of the piece can be seen in stark contrast, each one not only a person, but also a representative idea.
This may sound intriguing to you, or it may seem like I’m coming down on it, which I don’t want to do. For all that I remained at a bit of arm’s length, I was also thoroughly engaged the whole time, and the play of ideas has moving resonance. Right now, the news is full of the conflict in Israel (sadly, regardless of when you read this, that will probably always be true – now, or in ten years) – and a piece that is all to do with people incapable of letting go of a cycle of past wrongs, people who will never feel the war is over, people forever driven to hate and fight and, in understandably defending themselves, inevitably ignore the perceived enemy’s humanity, and thus do horrible things out of a drive to see justice done – a piece that brings the tensions of such themes to heart feels urgent and meaningful and good.
Also, while it doesn’t do a lot of “spooky,” when it decides to get ghostly or brutal or horrific, this emotional drama is willing to be pretty rough. It is definitely a horror piece and I think it’s a good example of how horror can target complex emotion in a particularly effective manner.
So, if this sounds like something you’re up for, I do suggest giving it a try. It won’t be for everyone, but it is a special little piece and I’m glad it’s out there.
The Uninvited (1944)
Well, this was just a delight. There is something so appealing to me about the old fashioned wit and charm you get in movies from the 40s and this delivered both qualities in spades. And on top of that, it really offers a solid, spooky ghost story with an engaging, emotional mystery. Apparently, The Uninvited stood out at the time of its release because it was a haunted house movie in which the house was, you know, actually haunted and not just the manifestation of a Scooby-Doo-esque prank. I haven’t seen enough of its contemporaries to compare, but it navigates the classic ghost elements capably – flowers suddenly wilt in strangely chilly rooms where household pets refuse to go, if they don’t just run away altogether, eerie sobbing echoes though darkened hallways just before dawn, and a young woman is thrust into a trance in which she’s compelled to run heedlessly towards the cliff’s edge where she believes her mother had fallen to her death years before. There is a strong sense that something really does inhabit this space and that it has what might be both affection for and deadly designs on the above referenced young lady.
Much of the haunting is carried out with a light touch, often accompanied by levity (such as when the leading man comforts his sister that everything is alright before running to his room and hiding under the covers), but for all that, the drama of the ghost story proceeds in deadly earnest. There is a dark, sorrowful secret to uncover, and moments of real weight and threat, all of which come to bear in the ghostly presences that fill this old, candle lit house, perched above the crashing waves.
In short, Rick and his sister, Pamela, while vacationing together in Cornwall, come upon a beautiful old manor by the sea and buy it for a song from an elderly man eager to be rid of it. His granddaughter, Stella, is distraught as it had been her mother’s house and the place where she’d died. As the embers of romance are kindled between Rick and Stella, they come to realize that the house is haunted, and that it is very dangerous for Stella to be near it as it seems to drive her to run for the cliff’s side, leading everyone involved down a spooky rabbit hole, investigating the truth of how and why Stella’s mother really died.
Along the way, we get séances, no shortage of things going bump in the night, and a nurse character eerily reminiscent of Mrs. Danvers in Hitchcock’s Rebecca (I do wonder how the overt lesbian subtext was read at the time by contemporary audiences – it is certainly not positive representation, but it is, rather strikingly, such obvious representation…), who is similarly devoted to a long dead woman whose presence so hangs over the house and drives the emotional action of the story. We also get moments of lightness and romance that really worked for me (it’s 1944 – you just have to choose not to be bothered that the adult Rick is falling in love with the 17 year old Stella). There is something so gentle and warm and genuine about the relationships – romantic or otherwise. Neither Stella nor Pamela come across as silly little things, and therefore, seeing love spark (in Pam’s case, with the local doctor) plays out quite movingly. And the degree to which this is really not a “love story,” but rather a story of murder, recrimination, and the weight of the past means that the romance just brings some refreshing life into the proceedings without ever becoming saccharine.
I can’t claim that it scared the pants off me, but it did offer pleasant, gentle chills and spooky seaside atmosphere, I was fully invested in the emotion of the central mystery, I really liked how essential the supernatural was to the drama (a rarity at the time), and I was quite taken with both the comic relief that didn’t undercut the seriousness of the ghost story and the romance that somehow clicked in such a satisfying manner. Just a lovely picture. To be fair, I expect few modern horror fans are probably looking for something that might be described as ‘lovely,’ but if you are open to its old timey charm, I think you may find it rewarding.
Hell House, LLC (2015)
Ok, this will be a little tricky to navigate. Thus far, in this run down of Haunted House movies that I’ve not seen before, I’ve covered a number of flicks that, at least from a modern horror perspective, aren’t exactly suuuper scary – and I wanted to remedy that with this next entry. I’d long read that Hell House, LLC is a properly scary found footage piece that seemed like it would deal with a haunting – it would cover some different ground for this post: more modern and really frightening.
The problem is… that I’m really not a fan of found footage… One of the features I most enjoy in film and certainly in horror is the cinematic pleasure that comes from something beautifully and atmospherically filmed, especially when that beauty is applied to something ugly, scary, or otherwise horrific (the juxtaposition of opposites yields such aesthetic satisfaction. So the vérité style of found footage isn’t that appealing for me, and can honestly be a turn off. The shaky camerawork, the “realistically” shrill presentation of often irritating characters, the attempt to present something as real, thus avoiding, or hiding a tighter dramatic structure, the suspension of disbelief required to accept that the camera is still running at all times. It’s just not my favorite.
That said, this movie did have scares. There were some moments that were certainly quite creepy (the camera looks at a scary clown mannequin, then looks away, then looks back and it’s head has turned – that sort of thing). I was often engaged, watching the whole frame, waiting for a shadow to move in the background or a face to suddenly appear. There is a perfectly enjoyable set up – a haunted house crew prepares a haunt in an abandoned hotel which is actually haunted and terrible things happen, and that dramatic context yielded plenty of creepy atmosphere – the fact that the place is always decorated to scare means that when characters move through it, there are so many things that could somehow activate and do something wrong. A lot of it works very well. And I always appreciate seeing creative people do so much with so little: a house, a small cast, a camera, some scary decorations – it is a low budget, big effect affair – kudos to all involved.
But it was hard for me to get past the basics of its form. The found footage of it all was just a hurdle too high that made it hard to appreciate its strengths (which ironically enough, were mostly products of it executing found footage tricks rather well). But I feel torn writing this – I always hate when some highfalutin film critic who clearly hates horror movies writes critically about a horror movie for doing the things one does in a horror movie – that kind of movie they clearly don’t like (so often true of Roger Ebert – often a good voice on cinema, but he was no friend to the genre). Not everything needs to be for everybody, right? If you like these kinds of movies, you’ve probably seen this already. If you haven’t, check it out – it’s scary. If you don’t have the stomach for the camera constantly being jostled about, maybe steer clear… I guess I’m glad, at least, to have finally scratched it off my watchlist as I’d long heard it praised – and rightly so (if you’re into that sort of thing).
—
And maybe that’s all I can squeeze in. To be fair, these aren’t all of the horror movies that I’ve watched this month – I broke that rule pretty quickly, but I do think these five covered a wide spectrum of the genre – from stagey, thoughtful drama, to over the top, seventies, religiously inflected excess, to playful children’s entertainment, to classic, classy old spooky-romance, to solidly scary, modern found footage. Otherwise, the cabaret I work with has been preparing our Halloween show (as I wrote about last year) and I happily enjoyed a steady stream of old favorites to keep me company as I sewed or Papier-mâchéied or painted or what have you (it’s always nice to be kept company by the likes of fun, oft watched fare like Return of the Living Dead, Fright Night, Halloween III, Friday the 13th Part II, Child’s Play, or The Vampire Lovers – all movies I can have on in the background as I accidentally stab myself with a needle – my hand stitching leaves much to be desired).
But as for the hauntings, I’m glad to have seen these all. Each has its own specific charms and excels in its specific fashion. They may not top the lists of ghost movies out there (there’s a reason I hadn’t gotten around to seeing them yet), but it is a pleasure to dig a little deeper and experience what they have to offer.
Also, as I’m just barely squeaking this in under the line before the month is out, I hope you all have (or had) a Happy Halloween!
